You said that the fact they’re becoming teachers indicates they’re not comfortable with aggression. Who is? You seem to be confusing aggression and defense! Those who need to defend themselves and children around them are being aggressed AGAINST, they are not aggressing themselves …and they would be offended at the suggestion.

You also seem to be suggesting that little kind ladies should not be able to defend themselves. You also portray the fact that you’ve never seen (or heard of) women, no matter how kind or little they are, carrying guns. It’s quite commonplace; in fact it has been well-argued that women are MORE suited to defense with firearms than men, since they can clearly benefit more by having them than men can. Guns have rightly been called ‘equalizers’ in this respect — their defensive use in the hand of a woman against an attack by a man ensures that her lack of physical size and strength cannot be used against her.

Lastly, your final analysis of how a person with a gun may react in that situation is seriously flawed. (1) it ignores the experience of almost 2 million citizens who have defended themselves using firearms successfully, (2) your desire to disarm the victims as though a better result would ensue if they were defenseless is asinine and we saw in the tragic Amish shooting HOW WRONG YOU ARE, (3) you mention that we should change “the attitude” toward guns. What attitude would that be?

Yours,
Quinney

The socialist emphasis is on a view of man a sacrificial being, whose greatest attainment is to surrender himself. In this post, Bill advocated that people sacrifice themselves to the whim of evil men, because he believes that greater good is accomplished in pacifism.

At other times, man should have to sacrifice his wallet, or his freedom to do certain things, or certain faculties of his mind; for the greater good – and at all times he should sacrifice himself for the collective.

Such a view is extremely common in lesser degrees through society, and the ideosphere is full of debate on an issue-by-issue level (like this particular issue which, superficially, was only about teachers and guns). But rarely do people acknowledge or even realise what principals are informing such views, and what ideologies are responsible for the belief.

Libertarians like myself could find myself at odds with (likely) almost everything that Bill believes about society and the role of government. But it’s important to acknowledge the reason for that, and subsequently to debate ideology.

Therefore my greatest issue with what Bill is saying is not PER SE that he wishes me to succumb to violent actions against me without using deadly force against those actions, nor that he believes in the moral equivalence of the aggressor and the victim. My greatest issue with what Bill is saying is that he wishes the rule of society to say that men are not sovereign individuals whose only moral justification is themselves, they are sacrifices to the collective.

And the second thing I observe is that the title of your post is set up as a antithesis to using guns in self-defense as if the way people use guns in this way in America is INSTEAD of forgiveness. You still do not understand that self-defense with a gun is being used NOT in revenge but as a way of preventing further violence by the individual involved! If I shoot someone who is going to kill me, I still may forgive them afterward and I will certainly call the ambulance and try to save their lives after the threat from them has been neutralized. It appears you still have this idea that use of a firearm in self-defense is somehow an evil retribution of some kind, when in fact no-one has ever suggested that you should be able to shoot someone in that manner. What we are suggesting is that you should be able to PROTECT yourself to save your life and that of your family. Is that so difficult to understand?

Hmm … somebody suggests that the means that myself and my countrymen are proud of using to protect ourselves, our families, and other people on a daily basis are against God’s will and I disagree, so that makes me a bully. Somebody further suggests that the act of self-defense is in and of itself contrary to God’s will, so that makes me a bully.

[sarcasm]That makes lots of sense.[/sarcasm]

When was it a crime to have bad syntax from a disability and to express your views,

I will not be bullied because I suffer from dyslexia; I also suffer from muscular dystrophy even though I was dealt a bad hand it has not made cruel or bitter to those whom I see as vulnerable.

It’s not a crime at all to have bad syntax from a disability. But to portray yourself as an educated, intelligent person without any context regarding said disability (there was none either on your blog before you deleted all of the posts or in these comments) is to misrepresent yourself. I cannot be blamed for your failure to inform me of your disability. On the Internet, all we have to judge are these words. If you have a disability, then you must disclose that you have a diability or risk the effects of that otherwise-unknown disability on your argument.

As to whether you’re being bullied … nobody’s picking on you for your disability (now that you’ve disclosed that you have a disability), but instead attacking your ideological position. You don’t need to feel vulnerable/ashamed/weak because of your disability, as long as you own up to it.

Your position on firearms, however, has been eviscerated.

is free speech banned in America and on the internet, life would be dull if we all held the same views and opinions variety is the spice of life

Of course not! Dissenting opinions as to things which may be discussed with objective fact and real-world experience are fantastic and lead to productive discourse! Even dialogue on subjective, personal matters is great! But you can’t mix the two. Opinions as to real-world matters supported by nothing more than subjective ideology do not lead to productive discourse.

In short, supporting your argument that reducing the number of firearms in circulation is a good thing with the idea that violence is inherently wrong because all people are predestined to their fate is not a rational position.

Libertarian reason was boring until I came along to add some stimulation if that is a point of annoyance to you tough luck.

That’s between you and the authors of the blog.

If you want to pick on the real criminals of American society I would suggest to you to look no further than the George W. Bush who was elected as President even though he had the least votes and his fellow bed partners corporate America who are infected with the stupid white virus, the root cause of America’s problems .

Aside from the rampant racism and “Bush-bashing” in this diatribe, I don’t think that anyone wants to “pick on” anyone else in this matter. If you’d like to debate American politics, be my guest. There are numerous opportunities for precisely that all over the web. But this discussion was about your perspective as to the necessity of reducing the number of available firearms, not American politics.

I think you are suffering from Instant hero immediate gratification syndrome just like the neighborhood bully who always picks on those whom he thinks are vulnerable and weak the dyslexic,(which is nothing to be ashamed of) when he himself feels vulnerable, to make himself look strong and to hide his own inadequacies. I would suggest to you before you put mouth into gear you engage your brain, would you go into the courtroom without the material facts. When was it a crime to have bad syntax from a disability and to express your views, is free speech banned in America and on the internet, life would be dull if we all held the same views and opinions variety is the spice of life, Libertarian reason was boring until I came along to add some stimulation if that is a point of annoyance to you tough luck.

If you want to pick on the real criminals of American society I would suggest to you to look no further than the George W. Bush who was elected as President even though he had the least votes and his fellow bed partners corporate America who are infected with the stupid white virus, the root cause of America’s problems .

I will not be bullied because I suffer from dyslexia; I also suffer from muscular dystrophy even though I was dealt a bad hand it has not made cruel or bitter to those whom I see as vulnerable.

I just disagree with his premise and I believe that he would add a lot of weight to his presentation by doing it in proper English.

As to your perspective, remember that Mahatma Gandhi and the Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso were/are both strong advocates of non-violent resistance to violence and oppression. Both of them also have expressed an understanding of the necessity of violent response to violence when necessary.

They could answer your scenario, but as they actually understood where feel-good ideology ends and reality begins, their answers and his wouldn’t be the same.

You relied on the Home Office’s statistics, indicating the dearth of firearms-related crimes. So how does the fact that the Home Office’s crime statistics were intentionally distorted by political pressure in order to make the UK appear safer than it actually is affect your “argument”? Please note that the article is dated February 13, 2006, from The Independent. Another blog post pulls together several important links on this point as well.

How about the fact that the BBC has reported on the lack of effectiveness of the crime reduction strategy adopted by the British Government. That article is dated October 11, 2004.

Maybe instead you want to discuss the efficacy of fining muggers and thieves rather than prosecuting them. Considering that the fine tops out at 100 pounds, there are circumstances where it is actually profitable to steal!

And, hey … what the hell … I’ll pull an old Internet trick here and call in some analysis from someone else entirely which contradicts your point. He doesn’t even have to resort to using flawed statistics to do it, either.

Now, understand that where you use the statistics which have been challenged repeatedly for their validity, other people use this thing called “reality”. And pacifistic Fatalist idology doesn’t work well in “reality”.

As for your most recent post …

I am sorry to disappoint you Quinney … blah blah blah … but my QUOTE is From Blaise Pascal’s Pensees, REASON OF EFFECTS were he quotes Terence,

The fact of the matter remains, regardless of the source of your quote (because it was neither offered originally nor is the source relevant to the discussion at hand), that you fell back to quoting platitudes, rather than making an argument.

If I say, “Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six,” does the source matter? Does the platitude itself matter? In the context of a discussion as to the use of lethal force, platitudes do nothing for any position.

besides that point, it was used as a summary of thought for my argument “EXTREME RIGHT IS EXTREME JUSTICE” the fact being that we who have different opinions of the situation which fail to succeed in convincing each other, so therefore perfect knowledge is unachievable in this case of having a probable view of what is right.

The fact of the matter here is that, although it’s possible to determine something resembling a point from the above rambling, you need a remedial English class. Your sentence structure defies comprehensibility, and you flaunt your ignorance of proper grammar and spelling as though they are in fact optional. Citing Roman and Greek authors does nothing for your position if you can’t form a coherent sentence.

That diatribe aside, you are correct in that our collective worldviews are so diametrically opposed that there can be no real growth from discussion.

With that in mind, I humbly request that you abstain from any and all discussion regarding the use of lethal force and the possession of objects capable of being used lethally. Please keep in mind that objects capable of being used to administer lethal force include knives, swords, electrical appliances, coffee mugs, piano wire, rope, chains, automobiles, pieces of glass, baseball bats, cricket bats, boots, shoes, hands, feet, teeth, claws, gravity, water, polluted air, plastic bags, and most other corporeal objects.

Your mindset is so antithetical to aspects of human nature including self-defense and self-preservation that there is no point in presenting it to anyone who does not already share your narrow-minded pacifistic Fatalist worldview. For all of the aforementioned reasons, please understand that your writings on the aforementioned subject have no impact on anyone else. As long as you propogate this ideology, please refrain from annoying the rest of the population with your perspective.